Image 01 Image 03

Connecticut Bar Association Threatens Members if They Use “Reckless Words” Concerning the Judicial System

Connecticut Bar Association Threatens Members if They Use “Reckless Words” Concerning the Judicial System

Democrat U.S. Senator Promptly Breaks Rule

On the afternoon of Thursday, June 16th, the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) sent an email to all of its membership, signed by the CBA President, Vice-President, and President-elect. The email, available here, warns all members of the CBA that they better not say, anywhere, in any form or forum, that Donald Trump’s trial, which, as you know, resulted in him being convicted of 34 felonies, was a “‘sham,’ a ‘hoax,’ [or] ‘rigged,'”, or that “our justice system is ‘corrupt and rigged,'” or that “the judge was ‘corrupt’ [or] ‘highly unethical.'” The email also stated that CBA members need to speak up in support of the Trump verdict because “[t]o remain silent renders us complicit in that effort,” i.e. the “effort” to damage the judiciary.

Law Professor Jonathan Turley captures the essence of what is wrong about this. From his post in Zero Hedge:

The message from the bar leadership is chilling for those lawyers who view cases like the one in Manhattan as a raw political prosecution. While the letter does not outright state that such criticism will be considered unethical conduct, it states that the criticism has “no place in the public discourse” and calls on members to speak publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.

The statement begins by warning members that “words matter” but then leaves the ramifications for bar members dangling on how it might matter to them. They simply note that some comments will be viewed as “cross[ing] the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”

According to the Connecticut Bar, it is now considered reckless and unprofessional to make analogies to show trials or to question the integrity of the legal system or the judges in such cases.

For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan for refusing to recuse from the case is considered beyond the pale. Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to Biden and his daughter’s major role as a Democratic fundraiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of a conflict). I have been more critical of his rulings, which I believe were both biased and wrong.

Yet, the Bar is warning lawyers that such comments can cross the line.

The ramifications for Connecticut attorneys are obvious – even having an investigation commenced by state authorities into something they post or speak about would be a disaster for any practicing attorney. For example, Professor Jacobson and other attorneys at the Equal Protection Project, routinely appear “pro hac vice,” or as a temporary member of the court just for the case they are involved in, and to be so admitted you must swear, for example, that there are no “disciplinary proceedings presently pending against you.” If the Connecticut Bar Association refers a Connecticut attorney to the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee for an investigation for any reason, their work would likely be significantly impacted.

And there are others who have aired reckless comments concerning our judiciary system, which the CBA hasn’t mentioned, as Turley points out:

Of course, the concern over rage rhetoric runs across our political spectrum. While rarely criticized in the media, we have seen an escalation of reckless rhetoric from the left. For example,  Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.”

My concern is not with the plea for lawyers to take care that their comments do not encourage such “aggressive tactics.” The problem is the suggestion that lawyers are acting somehow unprofessionally in denouncing what many view as a two-tier system of justice and the politicalization of our legal system.

Like many, I believe that the Manhattan case was a flagrant example of such weaponization of the legal system and should be denounced by all lawyers. It is a return, in my view, to the type of political prosecution once common in this country.

For those lawyers who view such prosecutions as political, they are speaking out in defense of what they believe is the essence of blind justice in America. What is “reckless” to the Connecticut Bar is righteous to others. Notably, the Bar officials did not write to denounce attacks on figures like Bill Barr or claims that the Justice Department was rigging justice during the Trump years.

This is the real essence of the problem with the CBA email: what if there was real bias in Trump’s or any other trial, do lawyers not have a duty to speak out against that?? Is judicial bias not a real thing? Has it not happened before in our judicial system? And how can it be corrected if lawyers don’t speak out against it?

Turley continues on the CBA’s failure to condemn leftist reckless rhetoric concerning the judicial system:

Likewise, the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecutions and not the continued attacks on conservative jurists like Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published warnings about those calling conservative justices profanities, attacking their religion, or labeling them “partisan hacks” or other even “insurrectionist sympathizers.” Liberal activists have been calling for stopping conservative jurists “by any means necessary.”

In Connecticut, Sen. Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative justices to rule correctly or face “seismic changes.” That did not appear to worry the bar. Likewise, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Crickets chirping from the CBA about these extremely reckless and partisan attacks by lawyers, one of whom (Blumenthal) is admitted to practice in Connecticut.

And, the same day the CBA released its email to its members, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy appeared on Jake Tapper’s show and said this:

So saying that the U.S. Supreme Court is “brazenly corrupt” and “brazenly political” and that Justice Clarence Thomas is accepting “payoffs” is perfectly fine, but criticizing a judge in Trump’s case who allegedly donated to Joe Biden and whose daughter is a Democrat political operative is not.

As one person stated recently on Twitter, and we are paraphrasing, the way to convince someone that Trump’s trial was unbiased is not to tell them to shut up about it.

As Turley puts it:

Ironically, the letter only reinforced the view of a legal system that is maintaining a political orthodoxy and agenda. These officials declare that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to draw historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics underlying these cases. They warn lawyers not to “sow distrust in the public for the courts where it does not belong.” Yet, many believe that there is an alarming threat to our legal system and that distrust is warranted in light of prosecution like the one in Manhattan.

And by the way, the CBA is a tax-exempt entity, and as a “501(c)(6) organization” is “prohibited from engaging in political activity, or attempts to influence an election of a candidate.” Hmmmm.

We’ll keep you updated as this story progresses, but here are some Twitter posts about the CBA email (Note: we found zero Twitter posts in favor of the CBA email):

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 1 
 
 11
AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | June 17, 2024 at 5:14 pm

All the more reason that states should not have “Guardians at the Gate” to create a barrier to entry for lawyers to practice law.

Remove the tax exempt status of all bar associations, remove the ability of the bar associations to determine what material is on the bar exam, and turn it over to a nonpartisan organization that can’t and won’t bow to political pressure.

Remove the ability for the bar associations to censor and censure lawyers.


 
 0 
 
 7
MattMusson | June 17, 2024 at 5:24 pm

Pretend or else.


     
     0 
     
     0
    JOHN B in reply to MattMusson. | June 18, 2024 at 10:49 pm

    They say you can’t say something negative about the phony cases against Trump because it could lead to violence.

    But when actual violence happens (like a mob outside the home of a Supreme Court judge) they are silent. or actually support the violence.

    The Connecticut Bar Association membership has shrunk in recent years as the association no longer fulfills any legitimate purpose.


 
 0 
 
 6
steves59 | June 17, 2024 at 5:28 pm

Chris Murphy sure does have a slappable mug.
And if you practice law in Connecticut, you should move.


 
 0 
 
 11
Skip | June 17, 2024 at 5:47 pm

If and when this administration of a Kangaroo Court gets overturned willthe Connecticut Marxists say they were wrong?


 
 0 
 
 1
rhhardin | June 17, 2024 at 6:08 pm

It would have to be careless to be reckless. It’s the same word. Yet there’s all sorts of care to it.


 
 0 
 
 15
thalesofmiletus | June 17, 2024 at 6:11 pm

This is the most blatantly hypocritical statement because everyone knows that what “crosses the line” will be based solely on friend/enemy distinction, as Turley illustrates.


 
 0 
 
 8
Ironclaw | June 17, 2024 at 6:21 pm

Well they’re quite clear that they don’t want honesty


 
 0 
 
 18
Tiki | June 17, 2024 at 6:45 pm

I can’t help but wonder at people who insist we on the right side of the aisle play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules, while the opposition play by Stalin’s NKVD rules.

The White Finns defeated the Red Finns/Lenin’s Bolsheviks by desperate and extraordinary measures – and after that was settled – returned their country to parliamentary democratic rule.

Our lawfare must be twice as malicious as the opposition’s, or we risk losing everything. Then, and only then, can we return to our beloved constitutional republic.


     
     6 
     
     9
    AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Tiki. | June 17, 2024 at 7:34 pm

    Milhouse will complain that republicans must follow the rules while his democrats have blanket free speech protection. Which includes burning the country to the ground.


       
       2 
       
       8
      Milhouse in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 18, 2024 at 5:34 am

      :”My Democrats” is a filthy lie, which you constantly repeat because you’re a filthy liar. And if we start violating people’s fundamental, unalienable rights just because other people do then we’re exactly the same as those other people, and don’t deserve to win.

      Also, we have blanket free speech protection too. And in the USA that is respected. The other side doesn’t arrest us for what we say. This letter is of great concern, and demands an immediate challenge in court, on the grounds of its chilling effect. I am confident that if it is challenged the Bar Association will withdraw it before the court beats it over the head.


         
         1 
         
         6
        CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2024 at 8:32 am

        Deserve? Not sure how deserve comes onto it. If the choice is victory or defeat and in politics gaining the political power to put policies into place is the THE goal then victory is preferable.

        I view political careers and contests as I view military service and warfare in some respects. Losing like a ‘gentleman’ when your opponent/enemy uses tactics you find too unsavory to effectively counter much less employ yourself due to ‘principles’ seems like a bad idea. Doing so simply allows the opponent/enemy whose tactics you decry as immoral and unprincipled victory and the ability to impose those immoral and unprincipled beliefs upon the vanquished. Might it cost some portion of your well-being physically, mentally and spiritually to achieve victory? Yes. If the battle isn’t worth that to you then stand aside for those who will make the sacrifice. If no one or an insufficient # are willing to make the necessary actions/sacrifices to secure victory then that battle isn’t worth fighting. Just my opinion and many disagree.


           
           3 
           
           3
          Milhouse in reply to CommoChief. | June 18, 2024 at 8:40 am

          It’s not a matter of being a “gentleman”, but of not committing war crimes. (Genuine war crimes, of course, not the phony ones Israel is currently being accused of.) If you commit war crimes then you deserve to be defeated.


           
           0 
           
           2
          ahad haamoratsim in reply to CommoChief. | June 18, 2024 at 9:45 am

          “He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become “He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. L And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
          — Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil


         
         1 
         
         4
        rochf in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2024 at 1:06 pm

        How can you say that we have blanket free speech protection when the Conn. Bar Asso tries to shut down speech it doesn’t like–if you don’t think lawyers are interpreting this as a threat against their licenses, then you’re naive as well; of all groups, one would think that a Bar Association would not put this out there–but this together with their silence on Blumenthal’s attack on the Supreme Court tells me everything I need to know about the liberal hypocrites at the Conn.m Bar Association


           
           2 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to rochf. | June 18, 2024 at 9:35 pm

          Idiot. Yes, we have blanket free speech protection, which is precisely why this is a news story. The CTBA letter is a violation of the freedom of speech, and that’s what we have courts for. Did you imagine that “blanket free speech protection” meant nobody would ever try to abridge it?!


         
         0 
         
         0
        caseoftheblues in reply to Milhouse. | June 19, 2024 at 6:58 am

        “The other side doesn’t arrest us for what we say.”…,,,,

        Are you really THAT stupid!?!…. What rock have you been living under Clownhouse….they have been doing it on a regular basis since Biden got in… what your censored Google results didn’t show what’s really been going on


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to caseoftheblues. | June 20, 2024 at 7:31 am

          No, they have not. They probably would if they could get away with it, but they know they can’t.

          If you think otherwise you probably get your news from garbage sites that deliberately lie, such as the Hoft Brothers’ lie-sheet.


       
       3 
       
       3
      Azathoth in reply to AF_Chief_Master_Sgt. | June 18, 2024 at 12:01 pm

      Damn–it was exactly as you said, right to how in the US, his Democrats have blanket free speech protection.

      WHILE calling you a liar for having the temerity to notice that he points out that OUR SIDE “doesn’t arrest us (Milhouse and his Democrats) for what we say”.

More evidence of the continuing attempts by the Left to destroy the United States.

If the CT Bar is ONE thing, it’s WOKE!


 
 0 
 
 8
puhiawa | June 17, 2024 at 8:11 pm

Democrat election fraud is a huge problem and has accounted for likely hundreds of fraudulent election results, the Justice system is totally corrupt. As is the Connecticut Bar Association.


 
 1 
 
 10
Subotai Bahadur | June 17, 2024 at 8:33 pm

I will grant that the Connecticut Bar Association may be jumping the gun a bit, but it is a harbinger of the conversion of all the Bar Associations [including the ABA] into an analog of the Soviet Bar Association if the Left remains in charge. With the threat of the Glavnoe Upravlenie ispravitelnotrudovykh LAGerei in the background.

Subotai Bahadur


 
 0 
 
 10
guyjones | June 17, 2024 at 9:22 pm

The vile and lawless Dhimmi-crats are becoming more brazenly and unabashedly totalitarian and fascistic, by the minute.

This thinly-veiled Bar threat, along with the continued harassment and punishment of openly and loudly conservative attorneys, and/or, attorneys associated with or representing President Trump, by sundry state Bars, is utterly contemptible.


 
 0 
 
 1
E Howard Hunt | June 17, 2024 at 9:50 pm

Yes it crosses the line / from falsehood and cowardice to truth and fortitude.


 
 0 
 
 11
George_Kaplan | June 17, 2024 at 10:00 pm

So the Connecticut Bar Association is legally required to be non-partisan, but has stated its members must support the Democrat lynching of Trump, and the courts and justice system else face unspecified punishments which could include loss of one’s livelihood.

At the same time, Democrat lawyer attacks on non-Democrat courts and justice are being ignored.

Doesn’t this imperil the very existence of the CBA, and enable any lawyers referred to authorities for ethics violations to argue that the CBA are themselves not only not in good standing but in direct breach of their legal obligation of non-partisanship by actively operating as an arm of Democrat party and thus any complaints ought to be ignored?

The self called “elite” dearly want the royalty of yore to come back. They all want royal titles even if it’s only Royal Toilet Cleaner.
Pathetic pieces of schiff that should be kicked out with the rest of the illegal aliens.


 
 0 
 
 10
DaveGinOly | June 17, 2024 at 10:51 pm

The CBA impugns itself with its letter. If the Trump prosecution wasn’t so corrupt, it wouldn’t need the CBA to come to the defense of Merchan and the prosecution. Anyone coming to the defense of such obvious corruption reveals their own corruption.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Gosport in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 19, 2024 at 5:45 am

    “Such statements can provoke acts of violence against those serving the public as employees of the judicial branch.”

    Pro tip: If the disgusting sham of a kangaroo court trial itself didn’t provoke violence then talking about isn’t likely to either.


 
 0 
 
 7
ahad haamoratsim | June 18, 2024 at 2:43 am

So would the CBA rule apply to lawyers who criticized the trial of Leo Frank? The Scottsboro Boys? Sacco & Vanzetti? Joe Hill? The Chicago 7 (originally , eventually the Chicago 6)? Sam Sheppard? Yick Wo?


     
     0 
     
     3
    Milhouse in reply to ahad haamoratsim. | June 18, 2024 at 5:49 am

    Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty as sin and got what they deserved. Upton Sinclair knew this, but covered it up because he was afraid of what the anarchists would do to him if he revealed what he knew.


       
       0 
       
       3
      ahad haamoratsim in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2024 at 9:48 am

      Fine. Strike them from the list. And allow me to note that I the U.S., the fairness of a trial, as you’ll agree, is supposed to be a question independent of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.


 
 1 
 
 3
RepublicanRJL | June 18, 2024 at 6:36 am

The Bar is effectively playing ‘mother’ to her children acting up while Mass is in progress. So, ‘zip it’ or just wait ’till your father gets home mister!!

The Bar is placing a gag order, a limiting speech component, of every trial.


 
 0 
 
 7
kelly_3406 | June 18, 2024 at 8:10 am

Yet another institution exposes itself as corrupt. No one has accomplished more than Trump in getting government agencies, NGOs, think tanks, etc to reveal their true nature as autocrats.


 
 0 
 
 0
boulder | June 18, 2024 at 9:15 am

Define reckless?

This CBA .. it is the Cowardly Bar Association.

I assume it is made up of ostriches putting their heads in a hole.


 
 0 
 
 3
Lucifer Morningstar | June 18, 2024 at 9:56 am

Archived the page so that it will be available even if the Connecticut
Bar Association later decides to delete the page and pretend it never existed.

https://archive.is/lQKVb


 
 0 
 
 2
Lucifer Morningstar | June 18, 2024 at 10:36 am

So my question is can Connecticut attorneys singly or as a group file a complaint or complaints with the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee against the Connecticut Bar Association and those attorneys in the leadership that authored and published this statement of policy? Seems to me that such a biased, “Shut up and only speak as you’re told to speak.” statement would violate some rule of ethics & professionalism.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Subotai Bahadur in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | June 18, 2024 at 5:12 pm

    I rather suspect that Connecticut attorneys could technically file such complaints. However, as in all things where the Left is not involved, there would be consequences and probably career-killing consequences.

    As far as legal “rules of ethics and professionalism”; noting the condition of what was our poor country I will suppress my natural reaction to the concepts and note that we no longer have a Social Contract and that power is what is sought above all other goals.

    Subotai Bahadur


     
     0 
     
     0
    Milhouse in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | June 18, 2024 at 9:40 pm

    Go directly to a lawsuit on first amendment grounds. Chilling effect.

The American ability to redress grievances – even to a judge or judgement – is fundamental to our basic rights. Look at the clown show that is Fulton County, GA, and the Young Thug trial. You can believe what you want about the people involved in the case, but there is no doubt that the judge is completely off the rails by demanding to know from Brian Steele what the source is for the unethical Ex Parte Proceeding that took place in his chambers, holding Mr Steele in contempt, and sentencing him to 20 days in jail. The judge has never addressed the core issue of the Ex Parte hearing without including or informing the defense – an uncorrected defect in the trial that IMHO will cause a higher court to overturn any guilty verdicts and waste all the taxpayer money and time.

Are we not allowed to stand up to this egregious conduct when it happens? Lawyer or no?


 
 0 
 
 1
FinbarOS | June 18, 2024 at 11:25 am

Will it be a splash or a thud when we finally hit bottom?

Dangerously close to “silence is violence” and compelled speech.


 
 0 
 
 0
FOTin1943 | June 18, 2024 at 2:00 pm

Now … some holier-than-thou law school grads are policing the spoken and written words of members of the Connecticut bar. Today, these know-it-alls whine about what has been or will be said about the judicial branch – so long as the words relate to all the Ds’ persecution of DJTrump. What is the next subject of their efforts to impinge on FREE speech? And what about the silence of these same arbiters about comments by biden and his sycophants? about the USSupCt or justices on that court?

Duquesne University School of Law 1969 (when law school grads became attorneys and practiced law – rather than engage in politics under the guise of speaking as the powers that be in a small-minded and dangerous bar association)

Re:
In the wake of the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, public officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a “sham,” a “hoax,” and “rigged”; our justice system is “corrupt and rigged”; the judge was “corrupt” and “highly unethical”; and, that the jury was “partisan” and “precooked.” Others claimed the trial was “America’s first communist show trial”—a reference to historic purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.

These claims are unsubstantiated and reckless.

Someone should file an ethics complaint against the CBA for falsely claiming that the listing of facts are unsubstantiated and reckless.

All of these claims are accurate!

The ones who wrote and approved of the memo should be disciplined for lying, unethical conduct, and bullying.


 
 0 
 
 0
Cicero | June 18, 2024 at 5:03 pm

CBA doesn’t seem to believe in first amendment free speech rights. Sad commentary on a bunch of lawyers. Would the CBA have condemned the Nazis shutting down free speech about the courts and German society in the 1930s? Now it seems they want to shut down those who tell truth in the USA that CBA doesn’t like.


 
 0 
 
 0
ILoveLamp | June 20, 2024 at 8:22 pm

They don’t call it Corrupticut for nothing..


 
 0 
 
 0
BierceAmbrose | June 21, 2024 at 9:38 pm

“Reckless Words” — OK, but what about careless whispers?

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.